Jamario H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jamario H. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision, making it the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision for purposes of court review. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The administrative law judge found that Jamario H. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since applying for benefits and had several severe impairments, including bipolar I disorder, adjustment disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The judge found that none of these impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge then determined that Jamario H. could perform work at all physical-exertion levels, subject to limits including simple and routine tasks, independent work with only incidental interaction, and a stable work environment. Because Jamario H. had no past relevant work, the judge relied on vocational-expert testimony to find that he could perform jobs such as hand packager, marker, or routing clerk.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the record was substantially underdeveloped regarding the work-related limitations caused by Jamario H.’s mental impairments. The record included extensive evidence of psychiatric hospitalizations, suicidality, auditory hallucinations, and other mental-health problems, but it did not contain reliable, evidence-based opinions explaining the resulting functional limitations.

The administrative law judge had not contacted the physicians who treated Jamario H. between 2008 and 2017 and had not ordered a consultative examination. Instead, the judge adopted the opinions of two non-examining state-agency consultants, Drs. Pinkston and Stephenson, who concluded that Jamario H. had relatively mild limitations and could work with restrictions. The court found those opinions, and the resulting residual functional capacity assessment, unsupported by substantial evidence. It also found that the judge failed to fulfill the duty to fully and fairly develop the record, a duty that applies even when a claimant has a lawyer and is especially important when mental impairments or an inadequate record are present.

The court did not decide whether Jamario H. is disabled. Although it stated that he appeared likely to be unable to work, it rejected deciding that question through speculation without an adequate evidentiary foundation. The court also declined to decide Jamario H.’s remaining challenges, including arguments concerning the listings, his testimony, medical evidence, and the residual functional capacity, because those issues could be addressed after the record was developed.

Disposition and Required Proceedings

The court ordered the administrative law judge on remand to hold another evidentiary hearing and ask detailed questions about Jamario H.’s work-related abilities. The administrative law judge must also arrange at least two personal consultative examinations: one by a licensed clinical psychologist and one by a clinical psychiatrist. The examiners must have access to Jamario H.’s medical records and assess his workplace abilities and cognitive and emotional health. The administrative law judge must then restart the sequential disability evaluation from step three onward.

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Jamario H.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The order did not award benefits or make a final determination that Jamario H. is disabled.